No need to simplify so much that only false dichotomies remain. My brain might be wired up differently but its capacity for nuance and reason is fully intact :)
No one is forcing the website owners to sign up with Cloudflare to enable this service with these aggressive configurations, and yet I understand why they would even just pre-emptively. It's cheap and effective, there's no denying that.
It is Cloudflare Inc. (66,59USD, +23.57USD/54.79% YTD), however, that architected the solution, markets it as a service, and controls it as a core part of their (i.e. everyone's) internet architecture.
As a serviceprovider they could be better at informing their customers of these unintentional side-effects and how they impact otherwise innocent visitors, but whose mental disorders/impairments cause them to be flagged for and having to undergo additional verification steps disproportionately more than others, likely due to some atypical behavioural patterns they show and their often adjusted hardsoftware setups producing an unconventional signature.
Some modifications to the system could probably be made on the architectural level too. We can get people in wheelchairs to the top of the empire state building, surely we can also find a solution that allows us to enjoy the benefits of these protective measures without wrecking the web's inclusivity and accessibility this much every time the measures need to be stepped up.
Am I asking for too much, what do you think?